BETA

Activities of Marcel KOLAJA related to 2020/2016(INI)

Opinions (1)

OPINION on artificial intelligence in criminal law and its use by the police and judicial authorities in criminal matters
2020/09/09
Committee: IMCO
Dossiers: 2020/2016(INI)
Documents: PDF(133 KB) DOC(74 KB)
Authors: [{'name': 'Marcel KOLAJA', 'mepid': 197546}]

Amendments (12)

Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Recital A
A. whereas the functioning of the digital single market should be improved by reinforcing legal certainty for providers of artificial intelligence (AI), and reinforcing users’ trust by strengthening safeguards to ensure the rule of law and fundamental rights in particular the right to privacy and protection of personal data, right to equality and non-discrimination, and the right to good administration and a fair trial;
2020/06/17
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)
A a. Whereas the testing and use of AI by police and judicial authorities is wide- spread, with different type of uses, consequences and risks that these entail namely, facial recognition systems, DNA profiling, predictive crime mapping, and mobile phone data extraction, advanced case-law search engines, online dispute resolution, and machine learning for administration of justice;
2020/06/17
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Recital A b (new)
A b. Whereas according to the report from the Fundamental Rights Agency there is still only limited information currently available on the possible use or testing of facial recognition technologies in Member States1a; __________________ 1aEuropean Union Agency for Fundamental Rights: Facial recognition technology: fundamental rights considerations in the context of law enforcement, (FRA Focus), 27 November 2019 https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_ uploads/fra-2019-facial-recognition- technology-focus-paper-1_en.pdf
2020/06/17
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Recital A c (new)
A c. Whereas in those Member States where some information was available on the use of facial recognition technologies, data protection authorities found that the use of these technologies did not comply with data protection law and lacked legal basis for their deployment;
2020/06/17
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Recital A d (new)
A d. Whereas discrimination in data - driven algorithmic decision-making can occur during the design, testing, and implementation phase, through the biases that are incorporated in the datasets or the algorithms;
2020/06/17
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Recital A e (new)
A e. Whereas certain uses of AI technologies are particularly sensitive and prone to abuse, which recently made some technology companies decide to stop offering related software;
2020/06/17
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
1. Considers that AI used by police and judicial authorities has to be categorised as high-risk, given that the role of these authorities is to defend the public interest and in view of the nature of their responsibility; considers that the EU should take the lead in laying down basic rules on the development and use of AI to ensure the same high level of consumer protection and uniform industry standards across the EU;
2020/06/17
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Calls on the Commission to assess the AI technology available on the market and the level of use by police and judicial authorities on a country-by-country basis.
2020/06/17
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Calls on the Commission to issue binding rules for companies to document the development of AI systems; notes in this regard that it is essential for the risk assessment documentation, the software documentation, the algorithms and data sets used to be fully accessible to market surveillance authorities, while respecting Union law;
2020/06/17
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
3. Considers that Articles 18(2), 42 and 43, and Annex X of Directive 2014/24/EU on public procurement need to be updated so that police and judicial authorities can require that such tools should be released as open source software under the public procurement procedure, and that a fundamental rights audit should be part of a prior conformity assessment; believes that – while ensuring the respect of EU law and values and the applicable data protection rules, and without jeopardising investigations or criminal prosecutions – training data must be open data;
2020/06/17
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
5. Insists that Member States shall ensure that citizens are informed when they are subject to the use of artificial intelligence and that effective complaint and redress procedures, including judicial redress should be made available to citizensthem;
2020/06/17
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
6. Recalls the high risk of abuse of certain types of AI, including facial recognition technologies in public spaces, automated behaviour detection and profiling to divide people into risk categories at borders, and calls on the Commission to ban them; utonomous lethal weapons, biometric detection and recognition for mass surveillance, mass- scale citizen scoring, and predictive policing, and calls on the Commission to ban all applications that are in the highest risk category and welcomes the fact that some technology companies already enacted such bans;
2020/06/17
Committee: IMCO